Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

There's nothing more dreadful than reading academic philosphy. They made the pursuit of truth and knowledge an exercise in deciphering gibberish. It's such a self-congratulatory field.

I would say the attempt to break things down into parts and specialties is what kind of ruins philosophy.  The great philosophers for the most part are individuals, not groups of specialists hacking away collectively at specialized fields.

Edited 2 hours ago by Joseph Maynor

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, Davino said:

I do believe he lacks content on philosophy of religion

Lacks religion?

Haha.

Actualized.org is True Religion.

I created True Religion.

What did you think I was doing?

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Davino]

Touché

I once told you Actualized.org is the religion of the future but you disliked that comment

I was thinking more on content talking on religion or different religions for example. What is true about hinduism and what's bullshit, etc. Or a holistic video talking on the religious sentiment or on different mystics. Something like your second video of Infinity. 

[Basman]

53 minutes ago, Davino said:

I didn't study philosophy because it was "history of philosophy" not Pure Philosophy. Same with psychology, it's about pathological psychology most of it, not human self-understanding or development.

Yup. Though you do learn a lot of valuable rigor and general philosophical knowledge, studying academic philosophy is more like learning to be a scholar in philosophical history than original thinking and contemplation.

1 hour ago, zurew said:

• Philosophy of Mind (113,100) 
• Epistemology (58,300)
• Metaphilosophy (13,045)
• Metaphysics (65,333)
• Philosophy of Religion (85,645)
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics (464,142)

A lot of these are response pieces, or responses to responses. A lot of energy is spent on the technical minutia of the definition of words. Not necessarily bad in it's own right, but it quickly becomes kind of a circle jerk. The arcaneness of academic philosophy obscured insight. The average person cannot derive much value from these texts, let alone muster the will to read them.

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Davino said:

but you disliked that comment

When others use that word I reject it because I don't trust them to know what true religion is.

[Sincerity]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It does not matter how much or how little philosophy I have read. What matters is that I became directly conscious of God, and they haven't. So none of their writing matters.

I don't get my insights from humans, I get it from God. I cut out the middleman. That's why the insight is so good. It is God's insight.

No amount of reading humans is good enough to understand God.

Preach 🔥

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

Same with psychology, it's about pathological psychology most of it, not human self-understanding or development.

I wouldn't say that's true. It's more that treatment in psychiatry and clinical psychology is pathology-focused. Psychology is much more wide and diverse than just clinical treatment. I learned a shit ton of stuff that positively impacted my self-development. If you ever get the chance to take a course in psychology of religion, or positive psychology, or even social psychology and personality psychology, it might actually be worth your time.

 

1 hour ago, Davino said:

In some ways that's true, but in others it's false.

So given that we agre in what's true I'll point out in what way it's false. You're not gonna understand certain engineering fields without proper mentoring or for example become a Doctor. There's something that university gives you and it's very hard to learn it without it. Your comment also clearly comes from someone who has a degree and therefore being above, we see it's limits. I'm a full two engineering degree graduate and so what, it really tought me very little, but even that little couldn't have happened without the rigour and process of the university. I'll soon enroll in a master, so I still get value from the whole university system.

What makes engineering so special?

When I started reading neuropharmacology in my MSc courses, I can honestly say I already knew 85-90% of it, and that's from me reading for a few years when I was 17-18 on my free time, just because I was interested (and because I felt it was an obligation because drugs are dangerous mkay).

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

Show me a paper that you think is deeper, more complete and better than Leo's videos on metaphysics and epistemology. I'll be delighted to read it.

Whats the response to the questions I asked you ?

 

You are using predicates in your question, that are vague and thats not how you compare theses in metaphysics and epistemology.

Here is one thing I can tell you most academics wouldnt do - they wouldnt give internally incoherent statements like what Leo gave in his infinity of Gods video.

 

19 minutes ago, Basman said:

A lot of these are response pieces, or responses to responses. A lot of energy is spent on the technical minutia of the definition of words. Not necessarily bad in it's own right, but it quickly becomes kind of a circle jerk.

Yes a lot of it is responses to responses which is good, because that can give depth to the issues and that can force the authors to defend underyling assumptions and to produce supporting arguments to the given premises.

Now I dont think that the circle jerk issue is any bigger than whats happening here on this forum. For you to be able to actually respond to the given argument  you need to understand what the premises mean in the argument and what kind of inference is used. You need a shared vocabulary for that and you need to be trained to understand how arguments work.

People on this forum would rather not study technical words and would rather pretend that a shared terminology automatically means a shared understanding , when thats clearly not the case.

This forum includes a lot of ideologically driven groupthink trashing scientist and academics without any underlying substantive understanding of the views academics are holding and assuming that every scientist and philosopher is just a new atheist rationalist.

[AtmanIsBrahman]

@zurew Have you watched Deconstructing Rationality parts 1 and 2?

It seems like you haven’t learned the lessons. Academic philosophy is a huge trap. 
They don’t understand how truth seeking works. The entire epistemic paradigm is wrong.

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, zurew said:

Here is one thing I can tell you most academics wouldnt do - they wouldnt give internally incoherent statements like what Leo gave in his infinity of Gods video.

I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to say the statements "in" the video itself were incoherent. I don't care to refresh my memory on this, but he does after all go on about saying how he is challenging a prior notion (the very notion in question: the supremacy/absolute "aloneness" of God) and then he goes on this step-wise process of deduction.

The problem of course is that "God" the way it is usually used, even by Leo himself, presents it as absolutely supreme. No twoness, no separation, no "other" outside of it. So when you say "Infinity of Gods" in this context (outside the video), it is incoherent. So it's more "externally incoherent" than "internally incoherent" (although again, I could be wrong, I can't be asked to check through the whole video again).

Nevertheless, the problem is using language in an incoherent way, and all for exploring a particular exposition of infinite regression (and if you were to take my advice, "Infinity of Demigods" sounds trivial, because it is, as trivial as "Infinity of Turtles").

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

@zurew Have you watched Deconstructing Rationality parts 1 and 2?

It seems like you haven’t learned the lessons.

That's a feeling you have, I see no argument for why that is.

 

25 minutes ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Academic philosophy is a huge trap. 
They don’t understand how truth seeking works. The entire epistemic paradigm is wrong.

The baby in the bathwater is that making concise and precise statements (e.g. not making imo trivial expositions on infinity; "infinite infinities"), and being coherent in how you use language ("God is one" ≠ "Gods"), be it inside a single video or across your entire framework, can be very helpful for communicating your ideas. It's ok if you consciously don't want that, but I probably won't stop talking about it (unless you make me).

Edited 14 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

@Carl-Richard Nothing that I say about God is ever trivial.